Quote:
Originally Posted by corrado26
1. The style of the pistol is not the style in use during the living times of Joseph Ebert 1710-1740. This pistol is certainly made far later.
2. The signature of J. Ebert at the front part of the lockplate indicates that this was made after the transfer of the pistol from flintlock to percussion. Would it have been made earlier, the signature, as Fernado already said, would have been hidden by the battery springs and senseless.
3. The style of the letters of the gunmaker's name and the adress "A PRAG" is totally different, so I assume that these have been made in different times by different makers.
4. So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s. Don't forget that the Neue Stöckel is not the bible and has lots of gaps. During the last 40 years I myself found more than 200 gunmakers worldwide not mentioned in this opus.
|
1. Would the original configuration, before conversion have been more like the gun style during his era?
2. I took the Turkish flintlock I have and did some measuring. If the connection points lined up before conversion, with nearly identical distance it is likely that the exposed areas would have been the same on both guns? The signature where it would not have been covered is still equal depth and equally worn to all the carvings. The small areas that would have been covered are worn to almost nothing? Why are there only 2 letters of his first name on the one side, if he put his name after the conversion? It looks like when it was converted those letters were on that part.
4. So the gun was converted in early 1800s to percussion? So when would the flintlock version have likely been made? Early 1700s? Lining up with the timeline for Joseph Ebert? That all seems a lot more logical in my mind, but I am just trying to pretend I am Sherlock Holmes :-)